1) “[T]he prohibition against funerals and any public funeral service” has changed without all the beliefs that supported that praxis falling away.

2) (Canon 2336[sic]) in the Code of Canon Law (1917): “If, spurning the admonition of the Ordinary, they stay in the illicit relationship, they are to be excommunicated according to the gravity of the deed or struck with personal interdict” is no longer in the current Code (1983).

1) [D]ivorced and ‘remarried’ Catholics are still recognized as figuring among those to whom ecclesiastical burial may be denied.

2) Catholics were not excommunicated under the 1917 Code for being divorced and remarried.

From the plain reading of the Canon 23362356 referenced by the Archbishop, it deals specifically with bigamy and the one twice married, and infamous for that very fact, faced the ecclesiastical sanctions of either excommunication or personal interdict only afterdisregarding the admonitions of the Ordinary and persisting in their bigamy.

Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez holds a Doctorate Degree in Theology and has been the President of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina [UCA] since 2009. He was previously Dean of the School of Theology of UCA (2008-2009) and Chairman of the Argentine Theological Society (2007-2009). He is also member of the Pontifical Council for Culture since 2014.

Rev. Fernandez’s service to Higher Education and the Catholic Church is extensive and broader. He was in charge of a parish in Rio Cuarto, Cordoba, where he founded the Seminary, the Sacred Science Institute for Teachers, and the Lay Centre for continued faith formation. He also advised local movements and lay institutions, while providing support to catechetical and ecumenical education programs.

He participated in the 5th General Conference of the Episcopate of Latin America (2007) and was member of its Editorial Committee. He has been an expert in several commissions of the Argentine Conference of Catholic Bishops (Comision Espiscopal Argentina-CEA) and, since 2014, is member of the Commission for Faith and Culture. On that same year, for the 3rd Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Pope Francis appointed Rev. Fernandez as Vice-president for the Message and member of the Editorial Commission in charge of the Report of the Synod entitled Relatio Synodi, on “Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization”. On September 2015, for the 14th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, he was also member of the Editorial Commission in charge of the Report of the Synod on the topic of “Vocation and mission of families in the Church and the Contemporary World.”

Since July 2016, Rev. Fernandez is advisor of the Congregation for Catholic Education. He has more than 350 publications in books and articles both in international and national journals from Argentina, Latin American and Europe.

Since we are dealing with Canon Law and Archbishop Fernández – Rector of a Catholic University and with such extensive relevant educational background – has made false factual claims on which his defense is based, by invoking the venerable legal principle Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, one may disregard his entire defense of Ch. 8. of Amoris Laetitia.

Endnote

For those still wanting to consider the rest of the Archbishop’s defense, be warned that together with the false factual claims, the Archbishop will draw you into his labyrinth by first questioning what the Church has never taught to be exceptions to the 5th and 7th Commandments [cf. CCC 2263 – 2267 and Catholic Encyclopedia > Theft]and proposing that they be considered as exceptions.

Conclusion

Abp. Fernández’s defense of Ch. 8. of Amoris Laetitia and his arguments contained therein are a non-starter.

It is clear that the Archbishop’s defense supports an agenda which is opposed to the Truth.

After 235 years, 10 months, 13,19 days to 13,19.III.2013, the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Francis, the 266th Pope of the Catholic Church, the plan to destroy all the thrones and overturn all the altars in Europe[i] has met with incredible success with the conquering of the final and most priced throne, that of St. Peter.

The Illuminati have taken over the Papacy and placed an agent of their own on the Chair of St. Peter. Pope Francis is an Illuminist ILLUMINATI PRIEST (ed. 6/5/2019).

“Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light from them and to draw them away from it. p.104-5”

The details of the cross are rooted in the Gospel of Luke. That is, the parable of the good shepherd and the lost sheep. Luke 15: 4-7 – What man among you having a hundred sheep and losing one of them would not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after the lost one until he finds it?

In the center is the figure of a man who represents Jesus, the good shepherd, who is carrying the lost sheep around his neck while the other sheep follow closely. At the very top of the cross is a dove coming down which represents the Holy Spirit coming down from God the Father to God the Son and helping out those who are lost and in darkness and bringing them new life! The linear style is intended to be a symbol for a new ecclesiastical era, a poor Church among the poor, as Pope Francis has indicated. […]

Earlier, they explained ‘Why this Papal Pectoral cross is different’:

For centuries popes, cardinals, and bishops wore the pectoral cross as a sign of authority and prestige amongst other clergy members. In fact, one of the first popes to wear a papal pectoral cross was Pope Leo III, in the year 811. He was given the cross as a gift from Nicephorus, the Patriarch of Constantinople. The cross was made gold and soon became customary for [a] pope to wear a pectoral cross. Since then the pectoral cross has been adorned with gold jewels and precious stones.

With that being said, we can gather that Pope Francis pectoral cross is definitely different from the past. You can see that there is no gold on his pectoral cross nor any precious stones or jewels. Only a simple and humble soul could turn down a solid gold pectoral which is exactly what he did. His Excellency chose to keep the same papal pectoral cross he had [worn] for many years as archbishop and cardinal in Argentina.

The same image Pope Francis selected for his pectoral cross, this pewter-on-wood Jesus the Good Shepherd cross has been designed just for your home. The image is a favorite because it was found painted in the Roman catacombs and is one of the earliest artistic depictions of Jesus by Christians. […]

A Google image search for “Good Shepherd catacombs” returns images that are quite different from the image on Pope Francis’ pectoral cross. A capture of some below:

The Good Shepherd of the catacombs would have inspired a cross like the following:

In his encyclical Humanum Genus (April 20, 1884) on Freemasonry, Pope Leo XIII teaches that since the fall of man, they have been two sides/Kingdoms/(St. Augustine’s two cities), which are in conflict with one another. The one is the kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ contending with the kingdom of Satan. The pope then goes on to teach that even in his day, the latter was led on or assisted by that strongly organized and widespread association called the Freemasons.[ii]

Since the catacombs’ images are quite different from the image on Pope Francis’ pectoral cross, let’s examine the other side to see whether the inspiration for this image is from them. The man in the image appears to make “X” across his chest. So what then does “X” symbolize? The Illuminati is a secret society within the secret society of Freemasonry, and Adam Weishaupt, having been disillusioned with Freemasonry, upon founding the Illuminati, synthesized many of the elements from the ancient mystery religions. One the symbolism of “X” is its association with death and the Egyptian god Osiris and it turns out that:

Osiris was the good shepherd who was loved by his people and it was felt that paying homage and venerating him would help Egypt and Egyptians to be successful. […][iii]

And here is his image:

Now we are left to explain the “dove”.

Osiris’ sister/wife is Isis who, even though a dove is one of her sacred birds’ symbols[iv], often takes the form of the black kite. The image on Pope Francis’ pectoral cross is taken from the depiction of her fanning renewed life into Osiris with her wings[v].

This, therefore, ascertains the fact that beyond their wildest dreams, the Illuminati have taken over the Papacy and placed an agent of their own on the Chair of St. Peter.

POPE FRANCIS IS AN ILLUMINIST.

[PS There is a “13” – Satan’s number, a number for them that signifies rebellion, apostasy, defection, corruption, disintegration, and revolution – on the clothing below the waist (see tweet embedded below). What is the bent image between the “1” and “3”? If it is what I think it is [a serpentine head phallus (ed. 6/5/19)] then the image is deciphered completely: The god of the underworld and the dead with his captive cadaverous sheep and his Antichrist are in place of Christ, God, the Good Shepherd.]

What remains is speculate on (ed. 6/5/19) [H]is degree:

Since god Osiris on the Pectoral Cross makes an “X”, Pope Francis could belong to one of the following degrees:

I will put my money on him being an Pope Francis is an Illuminati Priest (3rd Class: Mysteries) [ed. 6/5/2019].

POPE FRANCIS IS AN ILLUMINISTILLUMINATI PRIEST (ed. 6/5/2019) and AN APOSTATE BISHOP[vi].

The dragon, the beast, and the false prophet signify Satan, Antichrist, and the principle apostle of Antichrist. These three different beings command all the other demons. In the work of our redemption, the three divine persons of the adorable Trinity manifested themselves. The Son adores the Father; the Holy host gives glory to the Son. And we see that in the mystery of iniquity Antichrist adores Satan and the false prophet glorifies Antichrist. Hence we have every reason to show that this false prophet will be an individual person and not a collective term to designate the universality of preachers engaged in the service of Antichrist. We can assert that he will not be a king, nor a general of an army, but a clever apostate, fallen from the episcopal dignity. From being an apostle of the Gospel he will become the first preacher of the false messiah. – TAN | HISTORY OF ANTICHRIST by Rev. P. Huchedé > Chapter 2 – The Action > ARTICLE II – CONTEST AND RELIGIOUS SWAY OF ANTICHRIST > 2. his Apostles pg. 24

Pope Francis confusing to Catholics but clear to Cabalists

Every time Bergoglio speaks, even Novus Ordo Catholics scratch their heads. Wherever his theology comes from, it’s not remotely Catholic – much less Christian. It’s as if he’s making it up as he goes along. His real passion is actually pushing exactly the same Western Globalist agendas as politicians like Merkel, Obama, and Cameron.
Today, for instance, he condemned people who speak of Europe’s ‘Christian roots’, heavily implying that’s fascist.
Hm. I hadn’t thought about it, but now that you mention it, that’s exactly the kind of thing certain rabbis would say. It’s just more evidence that the Catholic Church no longer exists. Bergoglio is a fraud, presiding over another Disneyland theme park just as rife with mind control and pedophile issues wrapped up in a simulacrum.
‘Pope’ Francis says ISIS is just like Jesus sending out his disciples.
– See more at: https://www.henrymakow.com/2016/05/pope-francis-longtime.html#sthash.kezILGRc.dpuf

Luis said (May 23, 2016):

Absolutely Dr. Henry, Bergoglio is a Gnostic, always speaks with double talking, semantic deception, using, of course, Christian terminology to fool people…..not many people have decoded this deception, which for me is the most cunning and deceptive (but so obvious for those who have studied the cabala, it’s development into Gnosticism and how it is used now in Christian churches to fool people…
Bergoglio is the biblical false prophet, who is dragging into apostasy as many Catholics (and others) possible…plus he is working [on] building a universal church, by having endless meeting with leaders of others faiths and creeds. Simon Peres in 2013 asked him if he wanted to be the symbolic leader of this universal religion…we don’t know what the answer was!!!
The true pope is Benedict XVI, which never left the Vatican…there are many prophecies stating that in some point Catholics would have to choose between a false pope and a true one, that we would have two popes at the same time (St. Catherine Emmerich for example)…
Pius X 1905 vision of a future pope…Pius saw this man crying and praying alone in the Vatican and that he would be martyred in the end of tribulations…Pius said that this future pope would share the same name as his – Giuseppe/Joseph…so it is Benedict XVI !!!

ROME, July 12, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – An atheist philosopher friend of Benedict XVI has strongly criticized Pope Francis, accusing the Holy Father of not preaching the Gospel but politics, fomenting schism, and issuing secularist statements aimed at destroying the West.

In a fiery interview published July 10 in Mattino di Napoli, Marcello Pera, who co-wrote the famous 2005 book Without Roots with then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, said he cannot understand the Pope who, he said, goes beyond the bounds of “rational comprehension.”

A philosophy professor, member of Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia party, and a former president of the Italian Senate, Pera said he believes the reason why the Pope calls for unlimited immigration is because he “hates the West” and is seeking to do all he can “to destroy it.”

He added that he does not like the Pope’s magisterium, saying it is “not the Gospel, only politics,” and that Francis is “little or not at all interested in Christianity as doctrine, in its theological aspect.”

“His statements appear to be based on Scripture,” he said, but “actually they are strongly secularist.”

[…]

In this week’s interview, Pera said he believes the open doors approach to migrants that the Pope is advancing will lead to a “bad reaction” with no desirable solution. He said the Pope’s positions underline that he is not in “perfect harmony” with “conservative Catholics and the rest of the Church.”

Bergoglio is not a Christian, much less a Catholic. His brand of religion is some kind of bizarre Jebbie-socialist-Gnostic mash-up, and his leadership style is that of a petty, little dictator. That’s why the Jews and Freemasons in Argentina love him, and they schemed with the St. Gallen mafia to get him elected. So don’t be shocked by any of this.July 14, 2017 at 10:16 PM

I’m still waiting for a book called “The Freemason Pope” to be released. Bergoglio is a [M]ason in case many of you didn’t know this. (most people have no clue) – His ties to freemasonry would also explain many of the characteristics explained in this book.

So, where is this love they hold for Islam? Their love for Islam runs in parallel with their misuse of Christianity, which truly means that their false love for Islam is nothing but a deceiving tool allowing them to use the religion of Mohamed as the executioner that will wipe out the Christians and the Jews from the face of the earth. They, the Muslims, will be doing the dirty work for the same group of people who did not hesitate to kill 500,000 Iraqis between 2003 and 2011. If they succeeded in accomplishing this plot, the elite would move on to find a way to rid themselves of those same Muslims they used to carry out and cover their evils. In fact, Francis and Obama honor an entirely different doctrine that has roots in Gnosticism and Kabbalah, but this is a whole different subject which very few can come to accept as truth.
– The WILD VOICE CNN Interview (Full Text) | Paul Joseph C, The WILD VOICE

Then on Monday, a high-ranking figure in the Bulgarian Orthodox church, Metropolitan Nikolai of Plovdiv, dismissed the pope’s visit as political and condemned in harsh terms his efforts to improve ties between the churches.

“The goal of all of this is to unite all the religions around the pope, so that when the Antichrist comes, for the pope to welcome him, and through him, all who are coming along with him,” Nikolai told a congregation in a church in Plovdiv, Bulgaria’s second-largest city.

Can. 1374 A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; however, a person who promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with an interdict.

[Blessed Anna Katharina Emmerick] once said: I see so many ecclesiastics under the ban of excommunication! But they seem quite at their ease, almost unconscious of their state; and yet, all who join associations, take part in enterprises, or adhere to opinions condemned by the Church, are really excommunicated by that fact itself. I see such men hemmed in, as it were, by a wall of fog. By this we may clearly see what account God makes of the decrees, orders, and prohibitions of the Head of the Church and how rigorously He exacts their observance, whilst men coolly mock and scoff at them. – The Life And Revelations Of Anne Catherine Emmerich Complete

If the viri probati are such tested married men, then their married life would be exemplary, and we would expect of them, for example, to have been married only once, and that they manage their children and their households well, and that they are also temperate, gentle, and live the virtue of poverty [cf. 1 Tim 3:1-13 (RSVCE)].

Most likely they are also fathers of large and poor families and spend their lives for their children and who with their effort and constancy — often without complaining of their needs — bring up their family, creating a cheerful home in which everyone learns to love, to serve and to work. [cf. The Virtue of Poverty | St. Josemaría Escrivá].

(What irony then that it is Brazilian bishops – with Pope Francis apparently in agreement – who are pushing for the ordination of viri probati [innovators’ definition] in remote, indigenous communities in the Amazon when the great and saintly pope spoke these words in Brazil).

Conclusion

If there are viri probati [innovators’ definition] in remote, indigenous communities in the Amazon or elsewhere, and if these viri probati are true, vocations to the priesthood and religious life would arise naturally from their holy families. There will be no need for the innovator bishops to presumptuously present such men for ordination.

Once again, the great and saintly Pope St. John Paul II and his Exhortation Familiaris consortio (November 22, 1981) are a stumbling block to the innovators and their wrecking plans.

“I saw a great power rise up against the Church. It plundered, devastated, and threw into confusion and disorder the vine of the Lord, having it trampled underfoot by the people and holding it up to ridicule by all nations. Having vilified celibacy and oppressed the priesthood, it had the effrontery to confiscate the Church’s property and to arrogate to itself the powers of the Holy Father, whose person and whose laws it held in contempt.”

They therefore appointed such men, and gave them the order that, when they should have died, other approved men would take up their ministry.(6*) S. Clem. Rom., ad Cor. 44, 2; ed. Funk, I, p. 154 s. […]

The footnote references the only genuine writing of Pope St. Clement I, the fourth pope, which is a letter to the Church of Corinth.

Pope St. Clement I

In Chapter 44. The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office, the saintly pope writes:

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour. – Fathers of the Church > Letter to the Corinthians (Clement) – http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm [cf. also http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xliv.html | Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL)]

From these two Church documents, nowhere does it appear that viri probati [= approved men] means “tested MARRIED men”

Conclusion

Clearly then what Church Teaching and Tradition means by viri probati, that is, approved men who are to be successively chosen to continue the ministry of the Holy Orders after those who appointed them have died, is not what the innovators have co-opted to mean “tested MARRIED men”.

This has nothing to do with “salus animarum” criteria or solving a shortage of priest in certain areas, but everything to do with the attempted destruction of the Holy Orders and of the Church.

Katolikus Válasz: One of the Hungarian bishops recently said that he is about to write a letter to Pope Francis asking him to allow the priestly consecration of ‘viri probati’ in the Latin Church. This has opened up a debate in the Hungarian Catholic Church about this issue and other possible solutions, including the abolishment of mandatory celibacy, to the shortage of priests in the Western world.

Do you think that ‘viri probati’ becoming priests will happen soon in the Latin Church? Can the Eastern Catholic or even the Orthodox practice be an example for the Latin Church?

Do you think that any form of relaxation in the mandatory priestly celibacy would be a good solution for the shortage of priests in the West? What is the main reason for the decline in the number of priestly vocations in the West, and what solution would you suggest to this problem?

Cdl. Burke: No, I do not anticipate any change in the Church’s discipline regarding priestly celibacy because of its roots in the example of Christ the High Priest, in whose person the ordained priest acts. It is my hope that only viri probati, in the sense in which Saint Clement of Rome first used the phrase, will be ordained, that is, men proven through an appropriate period of seminary formation. I do not anticipate the ordination of viri probati, in the sense of married men of proven virtue, according to a current use of the phrase, in the Roman Catholic Church.

The practice of the Eastern Churches regarding priestly celibacy must be understood thoroughly and deeply. It does not constitute an argument for a change in the discipline of the Latin Church. A relaxation of the discipline regarding priestly celibacy will not increase the number of vocations. A priestly vocation is a response to a divine call which includes the grace of celibacy or perpetual continence.

The reason for the lack of response to the priestly vocation is the loss of faith in our times and the lack of instruction of the young in the faith. God is certainly calling a sufficient number of young men to serve His Church. The worldliness of the culture in which we live makes it difficult for a man to hear the call.

Also, the failure of families, parish priests and other Christians to foster priestly vocations deprives those being called of an essential help in understanding and responding to the call.

“I saw a great power rise up against the Church. It plundered, devastated, and threw into confusion and disorder the vine of the Lord, having it trampled underfoot by the people and holding it up to ridicule by all nations. Having vilified celibacy and oppressed the priesthood, it had the effrontery to confiscate the Church’s property and to arrogate to itself the powers of the Holy Father, whose person and whose laws it held in contempt.”

Who may receive Holy Communion

To receive Holy Communion, we must be “in communion” with the Church: we should be in a state of grace, keep the fast of one hour (not required for the elderly or sick), and we should prepare devoutly to receive the sacrament. The Church encourages those who are properly disposed to receive Holy Communion whenever they participate in the Mass.

Those who are living together as husband and wife but who are not married, or who are married outside the Church without permission may not receive Holy Communion.

If we are conscious of having committed a mortal sin, we should make a sacramental confession before receiving Holy Communion.

Now when

[asked] if the exhortation modified church teaching, Nichols said: “There is no question of that…The issues raised by Amoris Laetitia are not core doctrinal issues, these are about how do we live, in very traditional terms actually, everything in Amoris Laetitia is drawn from the tradition of the Church: how do we live the mercy of God and how do we enable people who feel judged, feel excluded, feel as if they have no place, to begin to explore that.” – UK cardinal says on ‘Amoris’, we follow the pope’s lead by Austen Ivereigh, February 22, 2017 | CRUX

The immediate above is from an article which occasioned Dr. Edward Peters to write:

Now if the Cardinal says, ‘on ‘Amoris’, we follow the pope’s lead’ and that ‘no core doctrinal issues are raised byAmoris Laetitia’ and Dr. Peters ‘agrees with Amoris defenders that Pope Francis made no doctrinal changes in Amoris’, surely THEY MUST AGREE that the teaching [=doctrine] in ‘Who may receive Holy Communion’ in CTS’ ‘A Simple Prayer Book’ MUST BE REVISED in the wake of #AmorisLaetitia, for example, as follows:

Who may receive Holy Communion

(Revised in the Wake of Amoris Laetitia)

To receive Holy Communion, we must be “in communion” with the Church: we should be in a state of grace, keep the fast of one hour (not required for the elderly or sick), and we should prepare devoutly to receive the sacrament. The Church encourages those who are properly disposed to receive Holy Communion whenever they participate in the Mass.

Those who are living together as husband and wife but who are not married, or who are married outside the Church without permission may not receive Holy Communion but following Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (March 19, 2016), in certain cases, the sacraments may also be given to people who live in ‘irregular’ situations.[1],[2],[3],[4]

If we are conscious of having committed a mortal sin, we should make a sacramental confession before receiving Holy Communion.

Footnotes:

[1] In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039). – Cf. Footnote 351 [paragraph 305], Amoris Laetitia (March 19, 2016).

[2] “Naturally this poses the question: what does the Pope say in relation to access to the sacraments for people who live in ‘irregular’ situations?”, continued the cardinal. “Pope Francis reiterates the need to discern carefully the situation in keeping with St. John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio. ‘Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God’. … In the sense of this ‘via caritatis’, the Pope affirms, in a humble and simple manner, in a note that the help of the sacraments may also be given in ‘certain cases’. But for this purpose he does not offer us case studies or recipes, but instead simply reminds us of two of his famous phrases: ‘I want to remind priests that the confessional should not be a torture chamber but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy’ and the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak’”. – Presentation of the post-Synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia: the logic of pastoral mercy, 08.04.2016

[3] Expressing his appreciation for the ‘pastoral charity’ contained in the bishops’ document, Pope Francis insists “there are no other interpretations” of the apostolic exhortation which he wrote at the conclusion of the two synods on the family in 2014 and 2015. – Pope endorses Argentine bishops’ document on Amoris Laetitia

[4] And a few days later, during the flight from Lesbos to Rome, Francis once again proposed Schönborn as the main exegete of the post-synodal exhortation, he being a “great theologian [who] knows well the doctrine of the faith,” as the pope described him. To the question of whether for the divorced or remarried there now is or is not the possibility, formerly precluded, of receiving communion, the pope responded with a peremptory and for once unmistakable: “Yes. Period.” But he recommended that none other than Schönborn be consulted for a more detailed reply. – The German Option of the Argentine Pope

Francis Rocca of The Wall Street Journal mentioned the recent Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation and asked whether or not has been any change in the discipline concerning reception of the sacraments by the divorced and remarried.

I could say “yes” and leave it at that. But that would be too brief a response. I recommend that all of you read the presentation made by Cardinal Schönborn, a great theologian. He is a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and he knows the Church’s teaching very well. Your question will find its answer in that presentation. Thank you. – In-Flight Press Conference from Lesvos to Rome (Papal Flight, 16 April 2016) | Francis

Conclusion

Cardinal Nichols, Dr. Peters, and all of Amoris defenders who say that Pope Francis Pope Francis made no doctrinal changes in Amoris, MUST ACCEPT THAT he has done so de facto even when they insist he hasn’t done so de jure i.e., he hasn’t changed the Church teaching on the matter in, for example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Code of Canon Law, etc.

CRA: On the broader issue – because we got very quickly down to some very narrow and quite technical things – going back to the slightly broader question: we’ve seen bishops’ conferences, individual bishops, offer different interpretations of the post-Synodal Exhortation and especially [of] the things that appear to be in chapter 8. I have to say that I was sort of surprised to see whole conferences crafting more-or-less legally binding implementations of a thing that the Holy Father himself has said changes neither doctrine nor discipline. Is there a simple misunderstanding here about the right interpretative key? I know you’ve talked about this a little be, but I’d like – on a practical level – I’d like to dig into it.

RLCB: Yes, well. I travel a great deal now to different parts of the Church, and what I find everywhere is a great confusion about these matters, and division: between priests, and between bishops, and even between conferences of bishops, and this is the difficulty when people try to make change without respect for the doctrine – the constant doctrine and discipline of the Church – and so you end up with sometimes radically different practices [from] one part of the Church to another, and this cannot possibly be, because marriage and the Holy Eucharist are the same in every time and every place of the Church. So, we need to deal – right now – with all this confusion and put an end to it.

That’s one of the reasons why, together with three other Cardinals, we proposed these questions, or dubia, to the Pope: so that he could set this forth, and dispel a great deal of this confusion, because confusion is never helpful – and I don’t know what it means to say that changes neither doctrine nor discipline. Change has to follow doctrine and discipline. If it doesn’t, then in fact it is either weakening doctrine or even contradicting doctrine and discipline. Reason itself teaches us this.

CRA: That’s the thing that is consternating to me here – and I can speak as a Catholic – reading the document, and having the insistence from people who are the Holy Father’s appointed interpreters and mouthpieces on this, saying that this is development in continuity with doctrine, with standing doctrine, so we’re seeing doctrinal development in continuity with the tradition. I can see how, for a certain value of the term, we are dealing with doctrinal development. It’s developing from one doctrine into another, it would seem.

RLCB: And that can’t be. In other words, doctrinal development means that we have come to a deeper understanding of what is the constant teaching of the Church, and are able to give fuller expression to it, but it does not mean that we change the doctrine or that we go away from it, and that’s the difficulty with the people who call this interpretation of the famous chapter 8 a “doctrinal development”. If the doctrinal development means that now, in the Church, those who are living in irregular matrimonial situations may receive the Sacraments, then this isn’t doctrinal development: this is a change in the Church’s teaching.

In fact, there is a commentator in the United States, Ross Douthat – [Do-that] I think – is how you pronounce his name, but I could be pronouncing it incorrectly – and a certain bishop in the United States gave an interpretation [to Amoris 8], which was radically contrary to what the Church has always taught and practiced, and this commentator – I believe he is a convert to Catholicism, but – he just simply said [that] from the point of view of reason, this is the end of the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage – and I believe that he’s correct.

(All emphases mine)

[UPDATE: April 6, 2017]

Of course, the innovators are not fools. They realize that the de facto changes MUST translate de jure.

On the evening of October 1st, the Pilgrim found her exhausted and bathed in perspiration from her heavy spiritual labors. She repeated that St. Michael, besides the seven days’ task, had prescribed certain alms, pointing out what children were to be assisted and what each one was to receive. “The Church,” she groaned, “is in great danger. I must ask everyone who comes to see me say an Our Father for that intention. We must pray that the Pope may not leave Rome, for unheard-of evils would result from such a step. We must pray the Holy Ghost to enlighten him, for they are even now trying to exact something of him. The Protestant doctrine, as also that of the Greeks, is spreading everywhere. Two men live at this time who long to ruin the Church, but they have lost one who used to help them with his pen. He was killed by a young man about a year ago, and one of the two men of whom I speak left Germany at the same time. They have their employees everywhere. The little black man in Rome, whom I see so often, has many working for him without their clearly knowing for what end. He has his agents in the new black church also. If the Pope leaves Rome, the enemies of the Church will get the upper hand. I see the little black man in his own country committing many thefts and falsifying things generally. Religion is there so skillfully undermined and stifled that there are scarcely one hundred faithful priests. I cannot say how it is, but I see fog and darkness increasing. There are, however, three churches that they cannot seize: St. Peter’s, St. Mary-Major’s and St. Michael’s. Although they are constantly trying to undermine them, they will not succeed. I help not. All must be rebuilt soon for everyone, even ecclesiastics are laboring to destroy – ruin is at hand.The two enemies of the Church who have lost their accomplice are firmly resolved to destroy the pious and learned men that stand in their way.”

When the Pilgrim visited Sister Emmerich on October 4th, he found her perfectly worn out by the exertions of the preceding night. That St. Michael’s commands were being fulfilled, was very evident. “I have had combats more terrible,” she said, “than any I have ever endured, and I am almost dead. I cannot say how fearfully I have suffered. This struggle was shown me long ago under the symbol of a person buffeted by demons, and now I know it was myself. I fought against a whole legion of devils who excite minds against me and do all they can to harass me. I have also undertaken too many prayers. They want to install bad Bishops. In one place they want to turn a Catholic church into a Lutheran meetinghouse. I must pray, suffer, and struggle against this, for such is my present task. If the Saints did not assist me, I could not endure it. I should be overcome, and that would be most grievous to me! I see the devil using every artifice to put me to shame. He is continually sending all sorts of people to visit me, to torment and wear me out.
– pg 266-267 of Volume Two of Two, The Life and Revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich by Carl E. Schmöger, C.SS.R.(My emphasis)

In Our Day

2. Already the 450th anniversary of the Augsburg Confession in 1980 offered both Lutherans and Catholics the opportunity to develop a common understanding of the foundational truths of the faith by pointing to Jesus Christ as the living center of our Christian faith.(1) On the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s birth in 1983, the international dialogue between Roman Catholics and Lutherans jointly affirmed a number of Luther’s essential concerns. The commission’s report designated him “Witness to Jesus Christ” and declared, “Christians, whether Protestant or Catholic, cannot disregard the person and the message of this man.”(2)

[…]

29. Implicit rapprochement with Luther’s concerns has led to a new evaluation of his catholicity, which took place in the context of recognizing that his intention was to reform, not to divide, the church. This is evident in the statements of Johannes Cardinal Willebrands and Pope John Paul II.(7) The rediscovery of these two central characteristics of his person and theology led to a new ecumenical understanding of Luther as a “witness to the gospel.”

(My emphasis)

[Obviously, when one reads The text of Pope John Paul II’s letter marking the 500th anniversary of the birth of Martin Luther, translated from the Italian by UPI, there is no such evidence from the letter of the great and saintly Pope St. John Paul II which states, ‘For the Catholic Church through the centuries the name of Martin Luther is tied to the memory of a sad period and, in particular, to the experience of the origin of deep ecclesiastical divisions.’ and ‘In the first place it is important to continue accurate historical work, It is a question of, through an investigation without taking sides, motivated only by the search for truth, arriving at a just image of the Reformer, of the entire epoch of the Reformation and of the people who were involved in it.

Guilt, where it exists, must be recognized, on whichever side it is found where polemics have clouded the view, the direction of this view must be corrected and independently by one side or the other.’]

The process by which memes go viral has not changed much since the 16th century. On October 31st 1517 Martin Luther, a monk at the University of Wittenberg, wrote out a list of 95 theses objecting to the indulgences authorised by the pope to raise money for building St Peter’s Basilica. The story that Luther nailed his theses to the door of Wittenberg’s Castle Church (as depicted here) may be apocryphal. But, in the equivalent of an ill-judged late-night tweet, he did send a copy to Archbishop Albert of Mainz, who was taking a cut of the indulgences. Soon Luther and Albert’s allies were engaged in a flame-war using the pre-eminent social-media platform of the time: pamphlets. As usual, things escalated. The pope had Luther convicted of heresy. Luther called the pope the Antichrist. German peasants and princes defected to Luther’s side, and Europe was plunged into more than a century of savage war between Catholics and Protestants.

Now, 500 years on, the Reformation has the soft glow of history. Commemorative events are planned across Germany in 2017. Some will celebrate reconciliation: on March 11th Germany’s head Lutheran and Catholic bishops will lead a service dedicated to the “process of healing of memory”. Pope Francis got that process moving in 2016, with a visit to Lutheran Sweden.

Some Catholic clergy still object to such ecumenical gestures. After all, Luther tore apart their church by insisting that the pope had no more say than any other Christian. Yet most practising Protestants and Catholics today feel they are on the same side, largely because they are among the few Europeans interested in Christianity at all. In most of Europe less than a third of the population considers religion an important part of life. Eastern Germany, Luther’s homeland, may be the world’s least religious region, according to one study.

Today few secular Europeans understand the reasons for the split in the church, or the logic of Luther’s doctrine that only faith, not good deeds, leads to salvation. They are far removed from a world where “good deeds” might mean coughing up your savings for a promise that God will release your late relatives from their suffering in the afterlife. For that matter, a few years ago, Europeans thought themselves long past the stage of resorting to violence over religion. That was premature. Intolerance, corruption and religious upheaval are all making a comeback, and not just in the Middle East. Time to bone up on our Luther.(My emphasis)

[The] Battle of Megiddo is recorded as having taken place in 609 BC when Pharaoh Necho II of Egypt lead his army to Carchemish (northern Syria) to join with his allies, the fading Neo-Assyrian Empire, against the surging Neo-Babylonian Empire. This required passing through territory controlled by the Kingdom of Judah. Judaean King Josiah refused to let the Egyptians pass, perhaps thinking that the Assyrians and Egyptians were weakened by the death of the pharaoh Psamtik I only a year earlier (610 BCE) and also attempting to help the Babylonians.[2 Kgs 23:29] The Judaean forces battled the Egyptians at Megiddo, resulting in Josiah’s death and his Kingdom becoming a vassal state of Egypt. The battle is recorded in the Bible, the Greek 1 Esdras, and the writings of Josephus. – Battle of Megiddo (609 BC) | Wikipedia

RSVCE Footnote Rv 16.16 Armageddon: i.e., Megiddo where Josiah was defeated by the king of Egypt, cf. 2 Kings 23.29.

Choose A Side Wisely

In the two battles of the end [second one in Rv 20] a side must be chosen wisely. The devout King Josiah, having disregarded God’s word through prophet Jeremiah and making his own interpretation on the word of God, chose wrongly and paid for it with his life. In the upcoming assembling at Armageddon the Babylonians and those with them are doomed and will finally be defeated definitively.